Could refugee status become a reality?

[jaideeguy]

This may be really 'off the wall' ..............or maybe not, but with the recent political unrest and martial law, is there a remote possibility that if the shirt hit the fan and escalated civil unrest/civil war does break out, could Thais get any kind of refugee status in accepting countries??

Hypothetical at this point, but just wondering.............

[David48]

Well, to answer that question from one viewpoint.

Considering the number of previous Coups and Martial Law periods that Thailand has experienced ...

did they reach 'Refugee Status' then?

That maybe the answer.

IMHO ... 'Civial War' ... does seem a long way off.

[jaideeguy]

So, does refugee status have to be granted by the 'host' country or can someone declare themselves a refugee??

[Seekingasylum]

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

[David48]

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

I understanding where you are coming from but ... but maybe this subtle adjustment ...

"Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted assessed for asylum and accorded refugee status."

[Basil B]

I would also point out while there is civil unrest in Thailand that is not far short of civil war, it is geographical and any persons who felt endangered could find safe haven in other communities within Thailand without the need to leave the country.

Even if things got a lot worse I doubt there would be mass refugee exodus and the only people that would be in danger are prominent people that may be hunted down by vigilantly groups or persecuted by the government, I doubt any reader of this forums girl friend would fit that status.

[Seekingasylum]

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

I understanding where you are coming from but ... but maybe this subtle adjustment ...

"Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted assessed for asylum and accorded refugee status."

Err, no. If one submits an application to a signatory to the Convention then they must have it considered, whether or not it transpires to have merit or otherwise. Additionally, a subsequent protocol added a right of appeal in the event such an application was refused. At no stage throughout the process can an applicant be removed until such rights have been exhausted

Most western countries' immigration laws were successfully circumvented by the bogus asylum route from 1980s onwards not least because the sheer number of such applications overwhelmed their systems and there was no capacity to detain within what were liberal, democratic societies where internment on such a scale was utterly alien.

The phenomenon accelerated the proliferation of visas as a prerequisite to travel and ushered in the concept of document/visa inspection by the airlines before check-in.

.

[Soutpeel]

So, does refugee status have to be granted by the 'host' country or can someone declare themselves a refugee??

Lets put it this way, if your a US/UK/Aussie or other western country citizen living in Thailand, and Thailand goes bang..you will not be considered for refugee status....

If one was a Thai national and it went bang, then of course you may be...

[jaideeguy]

So, what you're saying Soutpeel is it depends on where you draw the line between martial law [coup] and all out civil war? or martial law is a 'pop' and civil war is a 'BANG!!!'

[Soutpeel]

So, what you're saying Soutpeel is it depends on where you draw the line between martial law [coup] and all out civil war? or martial law is a 'pop' and civil war is a 'BANG!!!'

nothing wrong with what your saying..yes military coup a "pop" the "bang" I would say would be if the military split into opposing forces along a sort of Red/Yellow thing, all "normal" day to day life ceases, it becomes a free for all, a state of anarchy prevails

[Jay Sata]

I have just come across an interesting angle to this discussion.

It involves a person who arrived in the UK on a student visa a few years ago but having concluded their studies did not

want to return to Thailand.

They have claimed asylum on the basis of being anti monarchy and as such facing imprisonment in Thailand if they return and

their views are discovered or revealed by family members.

The person is not enjoying much of a lifestyle as they only get £35 a week from the state plus clothing coupons which can be exchanged in charity shops.Asylum seekers also have recourse to food banks but in short it does not seem much of a lifestyle and they are left in a limbo situation.

[4dyg]

what did you say you name was again?

[manarak]

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

I understanding where you are coming from but ... but maybe this subtle adjustment ...

"Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted assessed for asylum and accorded refugee status."

Err, no. If one submits an application to a signatory to the Convention then they must have it considered, whether or not it transpires to have merit or otherwise. Additionally, a subsequent protocol added a right of appeal in the event such an application was refused. At no stage throughout the process can an applicant be removed until such rights have been exhausted

Most western countries' immigration laws were successfully circumvented by the bogus asylum route from 1980s onwards not least because the sheer number of such applications overwhelmed their systems and there was no capacity to detain within what were liberal, democratic societies where internment on such a scale was utterly alien.

The phenomenon accelerated the proliferation of visas as a prerequisite to travel and ushered in the concept of document/visa inspection by the airlines before check-in.

Applications have to be submitted from within the country where the refugee wants to apply - it is impossible to apply from abroad and no visas are granted to allow people to apply for asylum. So any asylum-seekers are forced to become illegal immigrants.

[simple1]

Why don't you google UNHCR for the basics. Signatory countries who observe the various protocols honour the principle whereby an applicant may apply for asylum because they fear persecution in their own state on the grounds of their political, religious, social, etc, beliefs or membership.

Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted asylum and accorded refugee status.

As a caveat to this one would also have to show that the state was complicit in the persecution, either by commission or omission, and that the prospect of internal flight is not realistic or practical.

I understanding where you are coming from but ... but maybe this subtle adjustment ...

"Theoretically, anyone who demonstrates that they have a well founded fear of such persecution would be granted assessed for asylum and accorded refugee status."

Err, no. If one submits an application to a signatory to the Convention then they must have it considered, whether or not it transpires to have merit or otherwise. Additionally, a subsequent protocol added a right of appeal in the event such an application was refused. At no stage throughout the process can an applicant be removed until such rights have been exhausted

Most western countries' immigration laws were successfully circumvented by the bogus asylum route from 1980s onwards not least because the sheer number of such applications overwhelmed their systems and there was no capacity to detain within what were liberal, democratic societies where internment on such a scale was utterly alien.

The phenomenon accelerated the proliferation of visas as a prerequisite to travel and ushered in the concept of document/visa inspection by the airlines before check-in.

Applications have to be submitted from within the country where the refugee wants to apply - it is impossible to apply from abroad and no visas are granted to allow people to apply for asylum. So any asylum-seekers are forced to become illegal immigrants.

Nearly correct, can apply from a third party country with the assistance from UNHCR, but not within their home country. Currently only 80,000 are resettled annually by UNHCR, with a massive backlog that means many are waiting in camps for 10 - 20 years.

As a specific point Australia has now stated that asylum seekers / refugees arriving by sea, unsure about those arriving by air, no longer have a right of appeal on status assessment and never to be granted entry to Australia. Its interesting to note that previously up to 90% were granted entry after an appeal.

Edited June 1, 2014 by simple1

[Basil B]

I have just come across an interesting angle to this discussion.

It involves a person who arrived in the UK on a student visa a few years ago but having concluded their studies did not

want to return to Thailand.

They have claimed asylum on the basis of being anti monarchy and as such facing imprisonment in Thailand if they return and

their views are discovered or revealed by family members.

The person is not enjoying much of a lifestyle as they only get £35 a week from the state plus clothing coupons which can be exchanged in charity shops.Asylum seekers also have recourse to food banks but in short it does not seem much of a lifestyle and they are left in a limbo situation.

AFAIK it is not a crime to hold such views only to start spouting off, but then if she has written something offensive against the King then she may be arrested on her return.

But then it leaves the flood gates open for GF's to apply for a visit visa and on arrival in the UK write a letter to the Times Letters Column saying something not very nice about the King and a then applying for Political Asylum, somehow I do not think it is going to work.

I hope the new junta looks at at the Les Majestic law and reforms it, at present it is used as a tool for political purposes and hopefully it would be reformed as to allow fair debate and those republicans within the land to voice their opinions, but rightfully the monarchy should be protected from slanderous and libellous attacks.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Basil B